text: Background Federal and State Marijuana Laws Marijuana refers to the dried leaves, flowers, stems, and seeds from the cannabis plant, which contains the psychoactive or mind-altering chemical delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), as well as other related compounds. Marijuana is a controlled substance under federal law and is classified as a Schedule I drug—the most restrictive of categories of controlled substances by the federal government. The Controlled Substances Act of 1970, as amended, does not allow Schedule I drugs, including marijuana, to be dispensed with a prescription, and provides federal sanctions for the possession, manufacture, distribution, dispensing, or use of such drugs. However, as of July 2018, 32 states and the District of Columbia had passed voter initiatives or legislation legalizing marijuana for medical purposes under state or territorial law. Of these, nine states and the District of Columbia had also passed voter initiatives or legislation legalizing marijuana for recreational purposes under state or territorial law. In addition, another 15 states have laws only pertaining to the use of products containing cannabidiol, also known as CBD, one of the non- psychoactive ingredients in marijuana plants. Nonetheless, federal penalties remain, and some marijuana-related activity may also be illegal under state law, including in states that have legalized marijuana for medical or recreational purposes. Figure 1 shows a map of marijuana legalization under state or territorial law, as of July 2018. Illegal Marijuana Cultivation and Eradication Marijuana is the only major illegal drug grown domestically, according to DEA. Individuals and larger organized groups, such as drug trafficking organizations, establish outdoor and indoor grow sites to cultivate marijuana. Outdoor grow sites can be located on privately-owned land, such as residential yards, farms, and timber lands, and publicly-owned land, such as national forests, as shown in Figure 2. Indoor grow sites can be located in residential houses and larger warehouses. Previously, we, along with the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Office of Inspector General (OIG) have reported on the environmental effects of illegal marijuana cultivation on federal lands. For example, in 2010, we reported that illegal marijuana cultivation on federal lands can involve, among other things, the application of pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers, and other chemicals, including chemicals that may be banned in the United States; removal of natural vegetation; diversion of water from streams; and deposits of large amounts of trash and human waste. In 2018, USDA’s OIG reported that trash and chemicals such as pesticides and fertilizers may remain at eradicated marijuana grow sites on national forest lands for multiple years, partly due to the cost of cleanup, which can reach as high as $100,000. Figure 3 shows examples of environmental effects of illegal marijuana cultivation on federal lands in California and Georgia. Marijuana eradication operations can encompass the following activities: seizure and destruction of marijuana plants, seizure and destruction of processed marijuana—which is smokeable marijuana in the drying process, loose, or packaged; confiscation of weapons and assets; and apprehension of individuals at the grow site. Additionally, operations may include the removal of trash and infrastructure, such as propane tanks and irrigation tubing, from outdoor grow sites during or after eradication operations to reduce the likelihood that growers will return. DEA’s Domestic Cannabis Eradication/Suppression Program DEA established DCE/SP in 1981 to support participating state and local law enforcement agencies in their efforts to eradicate and suppress illegal, domestically-grown marijuana. Over the past three decades, DEA has provided support for marijuana eradication and suppression efforts through DCE/SP in all 50 states, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. In fiscal year 2018, DEA obligated DCE/SP funding to 125 participating agencies in 37 states. DEA’s Office of Operations Management, Investigative Support Section is responsible for the overall management and oversight of DCE/SP. Personnel from DEA’s field divisions and contractors are responsible for implementing DCE/SP in the field. Specifically, DEA field divisions assign a special agent to serve as DCE/SP coordinator for each state in its area of responsibility. DCE/SP coordinators are responsible for reviewing participating agencies’ annual strategic plans for DCE/SP, and approving certain purchase requests, among other things. DEA also contracts for analytical and administrative support for the program. The contract provides DEA with six personnel, referred to as regional contractors, whose primary duties include providing guidance to participating agencies on allowable program expenditures, and reviewing the information participating agencies report to DEA on their program expenditures and eradication and suppression activities. DEA’s implementation of DCE/SP is a multi-step process with activities performed by DEA and participating agencies during each step, as shown in Figure 4. Each year, DEA requests and receives funding for DCE/SP from DOJ’s Assets Forfeiture Fund. To participate in DCE/SP, a state or local law enforcement agency must apply and enter into a reimbursable funding agreement with DEA. Specifically, a participating agency must submit an annual strategic plan describing, among other things, how it intends to use DCE/SP funding to address the illegal domestic marijuana threat in its area of responsibility, and coordinate with other federal agencies, such as the Forest Service. DEA and the participating agency then sign a letter of agreement, whereby the participating agency agrees to eradicate and suppress illegal marijuana as part of DCE/SP, and DEA agrees to provide a specified amount of funding to the participating agency to defray the costs of those activities. This agreement also outlines program restrictions and requirements for participating agencies, which include only using DCE/SP funds to reimburse expenses that DEA has deemed allowable; obtaining approval from DEA prior to expending DCE/SP funds on certain items; submitting an expenditure report to DEA each quarter; and collecting and reporting to DEA information on its marijuana eradication and suppression activities. DEA Obligated Over $17 Million Annually on Average to DCE/SP in Recent Years; Participating Agencies Expended Most Funds on Aviation Support and Overtime DEA Obligated Between $12.4 Million and $22 Million Annually to DCE/SP from 2015 Through Fiscal Year 2018; Five States Were Obligated About Half of the Funds Each Year DEA obligated about $17.7 million annually on average to DCE/SP from 2015 through fiscal year 2018. As shown in Figure 5, the total amount of funding DEA obligated to DCE/SP decreased from $22 million in 2015 to $12.4 million in fiscal year 2017, and increased to $18 million in fiscal year 2018. During each year of the 4-year time frame we reviewed, DEA obligated most of the DCE/SP funds to support the marijuana eradication efforts of the participating agencies—for example, $14 million of the $18 million in fiscal year 2018 went to 125 participating agencies in 37 states, or approximately $378,000 on average per state. DEA obligated the remaining funds—for example, $4 million in fiscal year 2018—to pay for program support. This support includes payments for the following items: The DEA Aviation Division, which provided reconnaissance, surveillance, undercover operations, and marijuana eradication support to selected participating agencies, according to DEA documentation. The Aviation Division prioritized its support to participating agencies based upon their past eradication operations, the availability of aviation support provided by other participating agencies, and DCE/SP coordinators’ request for support. Equipment, travel, and training for DEA headquarters and field divisions to support eradication activities. Six regional contractors that provided administrative support to the program. Figure 5 also shows that in each year from 2015 through fiscal year 2018, about half of total DCE/SP funds went to participating agencies in five states. For example, in fiscal year 2018 DEA obligated 48 percent of these funds to participating agencies in California, Kentucky, Georgia, Texas, and Tennessee. Moreover, by magnitude, California, Kentucky, Georgia, and Tennessee were among the top five states in each of the 4 years we examined. DEA headquarters officials reported that they obligate funding to participating agencies based on various factors, including the agencies’ past performance, their level of matching investment in the program, and the approximate amount of illegal growing in an area. DEA headquarters officials noted that some marijuana grows may still be illegal under state and local law—even in those states that have legalized or regulated marijuana in some form under state or local law. As such, DEA has obligated funds to participating agencies in states with and without some form of marijuana legalization under state law. Participating Agencies Expended Most Funds on Aviation Support and Overtime in Recent Years Participating state and local agencies have expended DCE/SP funds on a range of items, as described below. However, we calculated that two items— aviation support and overtime —accounted for a large majority of their expenditures in each of the 3 years we reviewed from 2015 through fiscal year 2017. For example, participating agencies expended 46 percent on overtime and 38 percent on aviation support in fiscal year 2017, as shown in Figure 6. Aviation Support. Participating agencies expended 43 percent ($17.0 million) of their DCE/SP funds to rent aircraft or purchase fuel for aviation support from 2015 through fiscal year 2017, according to DEA data. For example, officials from a participating state agency in California reported expending DCE/SP funds to contract for the use of helicopters for at least 90 days per year, which they use to support marijuana eradication efforts across the state. Officials from participating local agencies in California reported that aircraft support is critical to their marijuana eradication efforts because it allows them to conduct aerial surveillance to detect possible marijuana grow sites, transport personnel in and out of grow sites in remote areas, and remove large quantities of marijuana plants from grow sites, as shown in Figure 7. Overtime. Participating agencies expended 40 percent ($16.0 million) of their DCE/SP funds to pay employee overtime from 2015 through fiscal year 2017, according to DEA data. Officials from a participating agency in Nevada told us that marijuana eradication is labor-intensive—in some cases involving long hikes and camping in the mountains—which can result in overtime costs. In addition, officials from a participating agency in Michigan told us that they expend DCE/SP funds to reimburse members of state task force teams for overtime costs incurred during their participation in marijuana eradication operations, which generally involves 1- to 3-hour extensions of their regular shifts. Travel and per diem. Participating agencies expended 6 percent ($2.3 million) of their DCE/SP funds to pay travel and per diem costs from 2015 through fiscal year 2017, according to DEA data. For example, officials from a participating agency in Nevada reported that traveling to marijuana grow sites in remote areas may take up to 6 hours, which requires them to incur travel and per diem costs for overnight stays. In addition, DEA headquarters officials reported that officials from participating agencies who attend the DCE/SP national strategic meeting are permitted to expend DCE/SP funds to pay for travel and per diem expenses. According to DEA headquarters officials, federal, state, and local officials from across the country attend the strategic meeting to discuss trends and issues related to illegal marijuana cultivation, and DCE/SP’s priorities and goals. Supplies, clothing, and protective gear. Participating agencies expended 3 percent ($1.1 million) of their DCE/SP funds to purchase supplies, and another 2 percent ($0.8 million) to purchase clothing and protective gear from 2015 through fiscal year 2017, according to DEA data. For example, officials from a participating agency in Texas reported expending DCE/SP funds to purchase machetes for cutting marijuana plants; cameras for taking pictures or filming at eradication sites; backpacks and hydration bladders; Global Positioning System devices for navigation; first aid kits; gloves to protect personnel from pesticides, fertilizers, and other hazardous chemicals; and heavy-duty pants and shirts, as shown in Figure 7. Equipment. Participating agencies expended 3 percent ($1.0 million) of their DCE/SP funds to purchase equipment from 2015 through fiscal year 2017, according to DEA data. For example, officials from participating agencies in Georgia, Kentucky, and Texas told us that they have expended DCE/SP funds to purchase all-terrain vehicles, which they use to help access marijuana grow sites more quickly than on foot, and help them to navigate difficult terrain, including mountainous areas. Figure 7 includes a photo of an all-terrain vehicle purchased with DCE/SP funds. All other expenditures. Participating agencies expended 2 percent ($0.6 million) of their DCE/SP funds on training, and another 1 percent ($0.4 million) on miscellaneous commercial contracts from 2015 through fiscal year 2017. Participating agencies also expended less than 1 percent of their DCE/SP funds on both container and space rental ($0.2 million) and vehicle rental ($0.1 million) from 2015 through fiscal year 2017. Factors that affect how participating agencies expended funds. Officials from participating agencies we spoke with in six selected states—California, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Nevada, and Texas—as well as DEA and Forest Service, provided perspectives on factors that affected how participating agencies expended DCE/SP funds to support their marijuana eradication efforts. State marijuana legalization. Officials we spoke with said that they expended DCE/SP funds to help eradicate marijuana grow sites not in compliance with their state and local laws. For example, in Georgia—where medical or recreational marijuana has not been legalized under state law—state officials reported that they strive to eradicate all marijuana grow sites. By comparison, state and local officials in California—where medical and recreational use of marijuana is legal under state law—said that all of the grow sites they eradicate are in violation of state and local laws. These grow sites include those on public lands such as national forests, and private land that had been trespassed upon. Marijuana eradication on national forests. DEA requires participating agencies to coordinate with Forest Service when conducting DCE/SP-funded eradication efforts on national forests. Officials from Forest Service and participating agencies we spoke with reported that they coordinate with one another when planning and conducting marijuana eradication on national forests—and that some of these efforts are funded by DCE/SP. For example, Forest Service officials in Kentucky reported that they participate in planning meetings with the state’s marijuana eradication task force. During the eradication season, Forest Service conducts aerial surveillance in helicopters funded by the state police using DCE/SP funds, and assists with eradication operations when available. As another example, officials in Georgia reported expending DCE/SP funds to conduct aerial surveillance to detect possible marijuana grow sites on national forests. Officials from some participating agencies we spoke with reported that they were able to expend DCE/SP funds to assist Forest Service with the removal of infrastructure such as sleeping bags and irrigation tubes at marijuana grow sites on national forests. For example, officials from a participating state agency in California reported that they assist with the removal of basic infrastructure and chemicals when feasible. However, Forest Service is responsible for the removal of infrastructure and subsequent environmental reclamation on national forests. DEA Oversees Participating Agencies’ Expenditure of DCE/SP Funds in Various Ways, but Does Not Consistently Collect the Supporting Documentation DEA Provides Guidance, Pre-approves Purchases, Conducts On-Site Observations, and Reviews Information on Participating Agencies’ Expenditures to Help Ensure Compliance with Program Requirements DEA oversees participating agencies’ expenditure of DCE/SP funds in various ways to help ensure compliance with program requirements, including the following: Provides guidance. DEA provides participating agencies a copy of its DCE/SP Handbook which describes, among other things, information on allowable and non-allowable uses of DCE/SP funds. For example, the Handbook explains that participating agencies may expend DCE/SP funds to pay overtime costs of officers participating in eradication activities if the officers otherwise would be unable to participate, but may not expend DCE/SP funds to pay for employee benefits. In addition, participating agencies may expend DCE/SP funds on equipment, such as all-terrain vehicles and Global Positioning System devices, but not purchase body armor, firearms, or tasers. See Table 1 for additional information on allowable uses of DCE/SP funds. Pre-approves certain purchases. DEA pre-approves certain equipment purchases, and requires additional review procedures to pre-approve higher-cost items. According to DEA guidance and headquarters officials, participating agencies are required to submit a purchase request form to DEA for the purchase of all durable supplies, materials, and equipment. A participating agency must also attach supporting documentation along with the request form—including price quotes, a description of the items, and intended use. Purchases up to $2,500 are approved by the DCE/SP coordinator, while purchases greater than $2,500, or 10 percent or more of an agency’s obligated funds, also require approval from the DEA Special Agent in Charge in the applicable DEA field division, who then passes the request along to DEA headquarters officials for final approval. Conducts on-site observations. DEA headquarters officials told us that, as part of their oversight for fiscal year 2017, they conducted on-site observations of participating agencies in seven states at training events, eradication operations, and participating agencies’ facilities. DEA headquarters officials said that they selected the site visit locations based on participating agencies’ funding levels and input from DEA field officials, among other factors. According to these officials, site visits allowed DEA to observe participating agencies’ equipment and compare it with documentation on pre-approved equipment purchases and reported expenditures. DEA was unable to provide information about the location or results of site visits prior to fiscal year 2017 due to both a lack of documentation and recent personnel turnover. However, DEA began documenting the location and results of site visits for fiscal year 2017. According to officials, the site visits did not reveal instances of misuse of funds in fiscal year 2017. Officials noted that documenting site visits is an important practice that will help inform the program’s plans for future site visits, and could help DEA identify best practices for marijuana enforcement to share with participating agencies. In addition, some DCE/SP coordinators we spoke with said that on-site observations help them to oversee participating agencies’ expenditure of program funds in the field. For example, one DCE/SP coordinator said that he has daily on-site contact with participating agencies, and that although he had not observed any misuse of funds, his on-site presence would allow him to detect misuse if it were to occur. Reviews information on program expenditures. DEA’s DCE/SP Handbook requires participating agencies to submit cumulative quarterly expenditure reports specifying how much the agency expended in each of the allowable expense categories, such as overtime, aviation support, and equipment. DEA regional contractors are required to review quarterly expenditure reports, and sign and submit the reports to headquarters for further review. Headquarters officials told us that they may ask participating agencies to clarify reported expenditures, and DEA may withhold funding if necessary until any issues are resolved. DEA also requires participating agencies to provide supporting documentation, such as receipts, for certain expenses claimed in the end-of-year quarterly expenditure reports. DEA Does Not Consistently Collect Supporting Documentation for Participating Agencies’ Reported Expenditures Notwithstanding these efforts to oversee participating agencies’ expenditure of DCE/SP funds, DEA does not consistently collect supporting documentation from participating agencies regarding their reported DCE/SP expenditures. As noted above, participating agencies are required to submit a copy of a receipt or other supporting documentation for certain expense claimed in the end-of-year quarterly expenditure reports, and regional contractors are responsible for collecting this information. However, the DEA regional contractors we spoke with had differing understandings of DEA’s requirement regarding the collection of information on DCE/SP expenditures, and indicated to us that they are collecting varying levels of supporting documentation. For example, One regional contractor told us that DEA does not specify the completeness of supporting documentation that regional contractors are required to collect. Nonetheless, he still collects supporting documentation for all expenses, which in some cases may consist of 200 pages for a single quarterly expenditure report. Another regional contractor told us that he is required to collect quarterly expenditure reports, and participating agencies are required to maintain supporting documentation internally. He stated that the completeness of supporting documentation he collects varies by participating agency within his region. For example, one participating state agency in his region submits supporting documentation to DEA for pre-approved equipment purchases only, but maintains supporting documentation for other expenditures internally as required. In contrast, he explained, other participating agencies in his region provide supporting documentation for all expenditures, including aviation support and overtime. A third regional contractor said the only clear requirement DEA has regarding the collection of information on program expenditures is that regional contractors must collect supporting documentation for large equipment expenditures. However, he still collects supporting documentation for all expenditures, including overtime. A fourth regional contractor told us that he is only required to collect supporting documentation for equipment, material, supply, and clothing expenditures. Accordingly, he collects supporting documentation for these expenditures from all participating agencies in his region. Some participating agencies in his region provide supporting documentation for all their expenditures, including aviation support and overtime. Officials in headquarters told us that although they were not fully aware of these varying practices for collecting supporting documentation, they had confidence that participating agencies were maintaining documentation internally as required. Moreover, DEA headquarters officials told us that they expect regional contractors to collect supporting documentation for aviation support and overtime expenses when participating agencies submit their end-of-year quarterly expenditure report. However, it is our assessment that this expectation differs from DEA’s written requirement because the requirement does not include supporting documentation for overtime expenses. Based on the results of our audit work, DEA headquarters officials said that they had taken initial steps to address this issue. In particular, officials said that they plan to convene a working group to discuss a potential update to DEA’s requirements for the collection of supporting documentation after the eradication season in 2018. In addition, officials said they had met with regional contractors to discuss potential solutions to address this issue. However, DEA headquarters officials could not provide us with a plan for this effort. Standards for project management call for developing a plan with specific actions and time frames. By developing and implementing such a plan to ensure that regional contractors are implementing DEA’s requirement for collecting supporting documentation in the intended manner, DEA could have greater assurance that program funds are being expended appropriately. DEA Collects and Uses Information on Program Activities to Help Manage DCE/SP, but Should Strengthen Data Reliability, Clearly Document Goals, and Establish Measures DEA Collects and Uses Information on Number of Plants Eradicated and Other Program Activities to Help Manage DCE/SP DEA collects information from participating agencies and DEA field officials on their marijuana eradication and suppression activities to help manage DCE/SP, such as the number of marijuana plants eradicated, pounds of processed marijuana seized, and number of arrests made. For example, according to DEA’s DCE/SP statistical reports, over 4 million illegal domestic marijuana plants, on average, were eradicated annually from 2015 through fiscal year 2017. Participating agencies are required to report information on their marijuana eradication and suppression activities to DEA. DEA also collects information on marijuana eradication and suppression activities its officials conduct in the field. For example, DEA field officials may unilaterally conduct eradication and suppression activities or provide support to other law enforcement agencies that do not receive program funding (nonparticipating agencies) on marijuana enforcement efforts, and report information on these activities. According to DEA documents and headquarters officials, DEA uses this information to help manage the program in a variety of ways. Specifically, DEA uses the information to develop and maintain a national assessment of illegal domestic marijuana cultivation; inform the scope and nature of program activities for future years; support the program’s funding request and determine funding levels for participating agencies; and assess performance on an agency-wide objective related to dismantling drug trafficking organizations. DEA also reports this information on DCE/SP’s public website. Participating Agencies’ Practices for Reporting Some of Their Marijuana Eradication and Suppression Activities Differ from DEA Guidance We found that participating agencies have practices for reporting information on some of their marijuana eradication and suppression activities that differ from DEA’s written guidance. Moreover, we found that stakeholders at all levels—participating agencies as well as DEA field and headquarters officials—had varying understandings of what participating agencies are required to report to DEA for DCE/SP. As a result, the information DEA collects is not fully reliable for the purpose of assessing program performance. According to DEA guidance, participating agencies are required to report information—such as the number of marijuana plants eradicated—only from eradication and suppression activities funded by DCE/SP. However, among the six states we contacted, officials from participating agencies in four states and a DCE/SP coordinator from a fifth state told us that they also include information on activities from nonparticipating agencies in the information reported to DEA. As a result of this broadening of information being reported, DEA does not have a fully accurate representation of the activities being performed by agencies receiving DCE/SP funding. Officials from these five states told us that they included this information to provide DEA with a more comprehensive assessment of the illegal domestic marijuana cultivation issue in their area. DEA headquarters officials were not aware of this reporting practice. Moreover, officials said that participating agencies should only report information resulting from their DCE/SP-funded operations, which may include results from support they provide to nonparticipating agencies. For example, if a participating agency provides support to a nonparticipating agency in the form of aircraft surveillance to help identify illegal grow sites, or additional officers to assist with an eradication operation, the participating agency should report the results from those activities to DEA. However, these expectations are not defined in DEA guidance. DEA guidance also states that participating agencies should make every effort to not report eradication and suppression information resulting from interdiction activities, which are not considered DCE/SP-funded operations. For example, marijuana seized by a participating agency during a routine traffic stop—a type of interdiction activity—should not be reported. However, we found that participating agencies had varying understandings of whether or not to report this information to DEA. As a result, information DEA collects from these officials is not consistent. Specifically, we identified three different practices that participating agencies followed to report eradication and suppression information resulting from routine traffic stops: report marijuana seized during routine traffic stops only if the marijuana can be linked back to a domestic source; report all marijuana seized during routine traffic stops irrespective of source; and do not report any marijuana seized during routine traffic stops. Further, we found that DEA field officials responsible for providing guidance to participating agencies had varying understandings of whether participating agencies should report information on marijuana seized during routine traffic stops to DEA. For example, two DCE/SP coordinators told us that information resulting from routine traffic stops should not be reported because DCE/SP is focused on the eradication of illegal marijuana grow sites. However, 3 of the 4 DEA regional contractors we spoke with said that participating agencies should report information resulting from routine traffic stops only if the marijuana seized can be tracked to a domestic source. DEA headquarters officials were not aware of these differing reporting practices and varying understandings. Headquarters officials told us that they expect participating agencies to report information on marijuana seized during routine traffic stops only if the marijuana can be linked to a domestic source. However, our assessment is that this expectation is not consistent with DEA’s written guidance. Officials explained that interdiction activities, such as routine traffic stops, are relevant to marijuana suppression, especially in light of recent changes in illegal marijuana cultivation and trafficking trends. For example, according to DEA officials, Kansas—a state without marijuana legalization—has recently experienced a decrease in the number of illegal outdoor marijuana grow sites in conjunction with an increase in the amount of illegal domestic marijuana being trafficked into the state from Colorado— a state with recreational and medical marijuana legalization. Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government state that management should use quality information—including accurate and consistent information—to achieve the entity’s objectives. Federal standards for internal control also state that management should communicate the necessary quality information internally and externally to achieve the entity’s objectives. Based on the results of our audit work, DEA headquarters officials said that they had taken initial steps and have additional plans to update DEA’s written guidance. For example, officials told us that they plan to convene a working group to help address this issue after the eradication season in 2018. This working group will, according to officials, elicit input from DEA headquarters, regional contractors and DCE/SP coordinators in the field, as well as participating agencies. However, DEA headquarters officials could not provide us with any details or documentation of its initial steps and additional plans to address this issue. Clarifying the guidance and communicating it to participating agencies and DEA field officials—for example, by sharing the updated guidance with them, discussing reporting practices during its national strategic meeting, or including the guidance in DEA information systems—would help ensure the consistent application of the guidance, and as a result, improve the reliability of the information DEA collects. The improved information could help DEA assess program performance and manage the program more effectively. DEA Has Not Clearly Documented All of Its Program Goals, and Does Not Have Measures to Assess Performance Although DEA collects and uses information on DCE/SP activities to help manage the program, it has not clearly documented all of its program goals and has not developed performance measures to assess whether the agency is making progress towards achieving its goals. We did not find explicitly-labeled program goals in the DCE/SP Handbook, DEA budget justification documents, and DEA’s webpage which we reviewed. However, we found the following four statements which appeared to reflect program goals: 1. halt the spread of marijuana cultivation in the United States; 2. eradicate marijuana that is illegally cultivated by a person or drug trafficking organization; 3. disrupt and dismantle drug trafficking organizations and deprive these organizations of significant revenue streams; and 4. deter the illegal cultivation of marijuana through arrest, prosecution, incarceration of cultivators and seizure of drug-derived assets, and by making cultivation untenable due to increased law enforcement activities. DEA headquarters officials confirmed to us that the statements above reflected the goals of the program. However, they also described the following additional goals that are not explicitly defined in agency or program documentation: maximize the number of law enforcement agencies that participate in improve safety during operations through increased access to training and eradication schools; and share information on illegal marijuana cultivation among law enforcement agencies. Headquarters officials explained that because they are still relatively new to the program—having arrived in 2016—they had not yet documented these goals. Officials said they plan to document the program goals in the future, but did not provide specific time frames for doing so. Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government state that management should define objectives clearly to enable identification of risks and define risk tolerances. Moreover, objectives are to be specific and measurable so they can be understood at all levels of the entity and that performance towards achieving those objectives can be assessed. Further, DEA has not developed performance measures with baselines, measurable targets, and linkage to program goals—several important attributes we have previously identified that performance measures should include if they are to be effective in monitoring progress and determining how well programs are achieving their goals. Baselines enable decision makers to assess the program’s performance over time. Identifying and reporting deviations from the baseline as a program proceeds provides valuable oversight by identifying areas of program risk and their causes to decision makers. Measurable targets help decision makers conduct assessments of whether program goals were achieved. Lastly, linkages between an organization’s goals and performance measures create a line of sight so that everyone understands how program activities contribute to the organization’s goals. DEA headquarters officials agreed that developing baselines to monitor trends in program performance over time would be useful for program management. However, officials said that setting measurable targets would be challenging because of factors outside of DEA’s control that may affect eradication efforts, including extreme weather events and changes in illegal marijuana cultivation and trafficking trends. However, DEA currently has performance measures with measurable targets for some of its drug enforcement-related programs and activities. For example, DEA has a performance measure with a measurable target for its agency-wide objective related to dismantling drug trafficking organizations—maximizing the monetary value of currency, property, and drugs seized. This performance measure reflects the outcomes of multiple activities across DEA, including DCE/SP. Further, while we agree that developing drug enforcement-related performance measures with measurable targets may be difficult, targets can help DEA evaluate past performance and make informed decisions about future operations, including allocating resources or developing strategies for the purpose of maintaining or improving performance. GPRAMA directs agencies to develop and document goals, as well as performance measures to assess progress towards their goals. While those requirements are applicable to the department or agency level (e.g., DOJ), we have previously reported that they can serve as leading practices at other organizational levels, including the program, project, or activity level. Agencies can use performance measurement to make various types of management decisions to improve programs and results, such as developing strategies and allocating resources, including identifying problems and taking corrective action when appropriate. Clearly documenting all program goals and developing performance measures with baselines, measurable targets, and linkage to program goals could provide DEA with the information it needs to assess progress and make informed decisions about current and future operations. Conclusions Despite states’ legalization of marijuana for medical or recreational purposes, illegal marijuana cultivation continues to occur. As the nation’s primary federal law enforcement agency for investigating and enforcing potential violations of controlled substance laws and regulations, DEA aims to halt the spread of illegal domestic marijuana cultivation. To accomplish this goal, DEA has provided financial assistance through DCE/SP to support participating state and local law enforcement agencies’ efforts to curb illegal domestic marijuana cultivation for almost four decades. These participating agencies have collectively eradicated several million illegal domestic marijuana plants annually in recent years. Nonetheless, DEA management can take further actions to improve its oversight of various aspects of the program. Specifically, by developing and implementing a plan with specific actions and time frames to ensure that DEA field staff are consistently implementing the agency’s requirements for collecting information on program expenditures, DEA will be better positioned to ensure that program funds are being expended appropriately. Additionally, by clarifying its guidance on the eradication and suppression activities participating agencies are required to report— and communicating the guidance to participating agencies and relevant DEA officials—DEA will have more reliable information to assess program performance and manage the program effectively. Finally, by clearly documenting program goals for DCE/SP and developing related performance measures with baselines, measurable targets, and linkage to those goals, DEA will be better able to assess the program’s performance over time and, if necessary, redirect resources to effective eradication and suppression efforts. Moving in this direction could help program investments achieve even greater results. Recommendations for Executive Action We are making the following four recommendations to DEA: The DEA Administrator should develop and implement a plan with specific actions and time frames to ensure that regional contractors are implementing DEA’s requirement for collecting documentation supporting participating agencies’ DCE/SP program expenditures in the intended manner. (Recommendation 1) The DEA Administrator should clarify DCE/SP guidance on the eradication and suppression activities that participating agencies are required to report, and communicate it to participating agencies and DEA officials responsible for implementing DCE/SP. (Recommendation 2) The DEA Administrator should clearly document all DCE/SP program goals. (Recommendation 3) The DEA Administrator should develop DCE/SP performance measures with baselines, targets, and linkage to program goals. (Recommendation 4) Agency Comments and Our Evaluation We provided a draft of this report to DOJ, including DEA, and USDA for review and comment. In its comments, reproduced in appendix II, DEA concurred with our recommendations and described planned actions to address them. DEA also provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. USDA told us that they had no comments on the draft report. In response to our first recommendation that DEA develop and implement a plan with specific actions and time frames to ensure that regional contractors are implementing DEA's requirement for collecting documentation supporting participating agencies' DCE/SP program expenditures in the intended manner, DEA concurred and stated that it will take measures to ensure that contract personnel are documenting and reporting expenditures in accordance with policy. Furthermore, DEA reported plans to update its DCE/SP Handbook by the end of the second quarter of fiscal year 2019 to provide uniform policy guidance on this matter. These actions, if implemented as described, should address the intent of our recommendation. DEA also concurred with our second recommendation that DEA clarify DCE/SP guidance on the eradication and suppression activities that participating agencies are required to report, and communicate it to participating agencies and DEA officials responsible for implementing DCE/SP. In its response, DEA reported plans to update the DCE/SP Handbook by the end of the second quarter of fiscal year 2019 so that the handbook clearly articulates the requirements and methods for reporting eradication and suppression data. Furthermore, DEA reported plans to conduct site visits and conference calls in the third and fourth quarters of fiscal year 2019 to communicate the requirements. These actions, if implemented as described, should address the intent of our recommendation. DEA concurred with our third recommendation that DEA clearly document all DCE/SP program goals. In its response, DEA reported plans to amend and document program goals for fiscal year 2019 and ensure that they are explicitly included in the DCE/SP Handbook and budget submissions. These actions, if implemented as described, should address the intent of our recommendation. DEA concurred with our fourth recommendation that DEA develop DCE/SP performance measures with baselines, targets, and linkage to program goals. In its response, DEA stated that it had identified performance measures for DCE/SP and convened an ongoing working group of subject matter experts to select a subset of these performance measures in order to better inform DCE/SP processes and management decision-making. These actions, if implemented as described, should address the intent of our recommendation. We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional committees, the Attorney General, the DEA Administrator and the Secretary of Agriculture, and other interested parties. In addition, the report is available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov. If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-8777 or goodwing@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this report are listed in appendix III. Appendix I: Domestic Cannabis Eradication/Suppression Program Funds Obligated to and Expended by Participating Agencies, 2015 through Fiscal Year 2018 From 2015 through fiscal year 2018, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) obligated about $56 million through its Domestic Cannabis Eradication/Suppression Program (DCE/SP) to state and local law enforcement agencies (participating agencies) in 43 states and the U.S. Virgin Islands to support their marijuana eradication and suppression activities. See table 2. In the table below, we also provide the status of marijuana legalization under state or territorial law, as of July 2018. Specifically, these categories include: recreational and medical legalization (R&M); medical legalization only (M); cannabidiol product access laws only (CBD); and no legalization (No). Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Justice Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments GAO Contact Staff Acknowledgments In addition to the contact named above, Brett Fallavollita (Assistant Director), David Bieler (Analyst-in-Charge), Matthew T. Lowney, Billy Commons, Pamela Davidson, Steve Gaty, Eric Hauswirth, Benjamin Licht, Kimberly McGatlin, and Adam Vogt made key contributions to this report.
target: Marijuana is generally illegal under federal law. Nonetheless, an increasing number of states have legalized medical or recreational marijuana under state law. However, in these states, some marijuana-related activity may still be illegal under state law. Since 1981, DEA's DCE/SP has provided financial support to participating state and local agencies for their efforts to eradicate illegal marijuana. GAO was asked to review DEA's DCE/SP. This report examines (1) DCE/SP funding and expenditures in recent years, (2) how DEA ensures that participating agencies expend funds in accordance with program requirements, and (3) how DEA uses performance assessment to help manage DCE/SP. GAO analyzed DCE/SP guidance, and expenditure and performance information from 2015 through fiscal year 2017, and evaluated DEA's oversight and performance management efforts against internal control standards. GAO also interviewed officials from DEA, the U.S. Forest Service, and participating agencies in six states, which GAO selected to include varying levels of DCE/SP funding and numbers of marijuana grow sites eradicated in recent years. The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) obligated over $17 million annually on average from 2015 through 2018 to its Domestic Cannabis Eradication/ Suppression Program (DCE/SP)—which supports participating state and local law enforcement agencies' efforts to eradicate illegal marijuana. DEA obligated funds to participating agencies in states with and without marijuana legalization laws. Participating agencies expended the majority of funds on aviation support and overtime (see fig. below). Officials told GAO they expended funds to help eradicate marijuana that was not in compliance with state and local marijuana laws. For example, officials in California—a state with medical and recreational marijuana legalization laws—said that all of their eradication occurs on public lands such as national forests, or private land that had been trespassed upon. In total, agencies have eradicated several million plants annually in recent years. Participating Agencies' Top Domestic Cannabis Eradication/Suppression Program (DCE/SP) Expenditures in Recent Years DEA oversees participating agencies' compliance with program expenditure requirements in various ways, but does not consistently collect supporting documentation for expenditure reports. DEA field officials collect varying levels of documentation, and headquarters officials were not aware of these varying practices. DEA officials said they are now working to address this issue, but they have not developed a plan with specific actions and time frames for completion. By developing and implementing such a plan, DEA could have greater assurance that funds are being expended appropriately. DEA collects information on program activities to help manage DCE/SP, such as number of plants eradicated. However, participating agencies GAO spoke with have practices for reporting some program activities that differ from DEA's guidance due to varying interpretations of the guidance. As a result this information is neither fully accurate nor reliable for assessing program performance. Also, DEA has not clearly documented all of its program goals or developed performance measures to assess progress toward those goals. Improving the reliability of the information it collects, clearly documenting all program goals, and developing performance measures could provide DEA with the information it needs to manage the program more effectively.